Question about Terminator 3 Movie

Discussion in 'Community Discussion' started by carbonmotion, Jan 17, 2008.

  1. carbonmotion macrumors 6502a

    carbonmotion

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2004
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #1
    I was watching T3 on a flight from Hong Kong to the US three days ago and after the movie finished, I had a plot question...

    How is T-X from T3 and for that matter T-1000 from T2 able to travel in the time machine if only things wrapped in living tissue can time travel as stated in the movie Terminator 1.

    It seems too big to be a plot hole, but I can't find a answer online...

    Anyone know? I'm bugged because I can't think of an answer...
     
  2. ClassicMac247 macrumors 6502

    ClassicMac247

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2007
    Location:
    Brick, NJ
    #2
    Hahahahahhahaha, it's so funny you asked that question because this morning on my way to school I watched the Sarah Connor Chronicles and they stated that you can't bring things with you, only flesh, no clothes no guns, no nothing, so how does a walking computer go through??? I'm stumped like you. I think it was something simply overlooked. this isn't as detailed as LOST.:D feel free to message me, I'm a huge Terminator and lost fan.
     
  3. motulist macrumors 68040

    motulist

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2003
    #3
    I think the answer is that this is fantasy, and none of this stuff holds up if you really scrutinize it. The whole basis of non-documentary film making is the viewer's willingness and ability to suspend disbelief. Even the premise that underlies the whole terminator universe unravels if you scrutinize it. They said only stuff wrapped in living tissue could come through, but if they could wrap the terminator machine in living tissue to make it pass through the time portal then they could've fused a super gun into the body of a deer for transportation purposes and sent it through the portal.

    All sci-fi and fantasy falls apart if you analyze it too closely. You have to willingly suspend disbelief in order to enjoy it.
     
  4. JNB macrumors 604

    JNB

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Location:
    In a Hell predominately of my own making
    #4
    Well, BAD SF falls apart, which most movies and TV fall into. Well-written SF has always been more or less coherent. Asimov, Niven, Clarke, and many others come to mind as being fairly complete in many "worlds" they've created.

    Besides, the whole "living flesh only" device was there for two reasons only. One, to put the hero (Kyle Reese) into a "by wits alone" scenario against the uber-killer cyborg, and more importantly, show Arnold's butt.
     
  5. yellow Moderator emeritus

    yellow

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #5
    Heh.. I just got around to seeing T3 recently and was so very disappointed. I figured it would be bad.. but.. I'm amazed that's the only plot whole that is bugging you! :)

    I hope this helps..

    In a Terminator comic I read a bajillion years ago, Skynet hit upon a bright idea for bringing weapons back in time.
    Just grab a human and surgically place some weapons inside.. then after the jump in time, just rip em out. After all, who cares, it's a human!

    :D
     
  6. carbonmotion thread starter macrumors 6502a

    carbonmotion

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2004
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #6
    This seems too big of a question mark to not be answered by the writers somewhere int he production process if not addressed in the actual film. Anyways, I enjoyed the movie, regardless.
     
  7. question fear macrumors 68020

    question fear

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2003
    Location:
    The "Garden" state
    #7
    Over on a TV forum this has been a raging debate because of the Sarah Connor Chronicles. What many have loosely concluded is that the terminators, being clothed in "living tissue" are able to pass through. Presumably this means the time traveling shape shifting terminators can shift human flesh around themselves and pass through.

    Another proposed theory: That a "self aware being" could pass through, but Kyle Reese being a soldier didn't have a good enough grasp to recognize the difference and assumed it was living flesh that had to pass through. So basically a hunk of dead human wouldn't work, but flesh around a self-aware computer does.

    I think the overall issue is that the rules set forth in the first movie were broken by virtue of better effects in the second and third. But it doesn't take nearly as many contortions to make that fanwank as some of the bigger plot holes in the terminator story, so it's never bothered me too much.

    I just rewatched T2 tonight, and while I thoroughly enjoyed it, it does have a lot more inconsistencies than I remember. Also, I don't remember the T-1000 looking so silly when he ran.
     
  8. janitorC7 macrumors 6502a

    janitorC7

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2006
    Location:
    North Hollywood, CA
    #8
    I Too was watching this, and thinking this same thing.

    and I think that the answer is that the machines are wrapped in living flesh.
     
  9. themadchemist macrumors 68030

    themadchemist

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Location:
    Chi Town
    #9
    The only question that comes to my mind is, "Why?"

    As in, "Why oh why did you make this?"
     
  10. SthrnCmfrtr macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2007
    Location:
    Las Vegas, NV
    #10
    That's probably the biggest problem in the Terminator series.

    The really fun stuff to think about is all in the time travel logistics, though. For instance, John Connor's life was never in danger -- he survived each of the attacks on him in every timeline, since in both T1 and T2 he was alive to send Kyle Reese and the T-800 (respectively) back in time. The only logical reason to send them back was to protect his mother, who was killed after his birth (in the timeline preceding the altered timeline of T1) and then killed when he was a kid (maybe destroying the T-1000?) (in the timeline preceding the altered timeline of T2).
     
  11. carbonmotion thread starter macrumors 6502a

    carbonmotion

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2004
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
  12. Iscariot macrumors 68030

    Iscariot

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Location:
    Toronteazy
    #12
    Apparently mimetic polyalloys that mimic human skin are capable of passing through time.

    The biggest plot hole IMO is that time travel creates a sort of Fermi paradox — if humans can ever develop time-travel, why aren't there time tourists or time historians? Stephen Hawking puts forth that if time travel is possible, it's impossible to go further back then when the time disruption/warp/wormhole was originally created. Which could have been woven into the plot in some way.
     
  13. Apemanblues macrumors regular

    Apemanblues

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2007
    Location:
    Zombieland
    #13
    I really like the first two movies, but the third is truly awful. The casting was way off and the direction is really poor.

    Disappointing.
     
  14. GhostWhoWalks macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2007
    #14
    Plot Hole

    In Terminator II at the end when he was fighting the T1000 he lost his arm in those gears which was never recovered or disposed of. I guess it could have altered the story giving them the metal to build those early machines in III but not the chip for creating skynet.
     
  15. carbonmotion thread starter macrumors 6502a

    carbonmotion

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2004
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #15
    you can't rule out the fact that the arm has its own cpu
     
  16. GhostWhoWalks macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2007
    #16
    That could explain how things were just delayed and not averted. The arm was still around with its own electronics but not as advanced as the cpu in his head. So developments just took longer.

    Would be funny if they had an outtake of Sara Conner settled down and putting a down payment on a house ten years after II and then remembering she left that thing stuck in a gear.
     
  17. SthrnCmfrtr macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2007
    Location:
    Las Vegas, NV
    #17
    The concept of "time tourists" and "time historians" is pretty weak, imho. Any time a person travels into the past, they necessarily change the past just by the fact of them being there.

    Consider this: We live in Timeline A. At the year 2934CE, someone travels back in time. They can travel back to a point in time on Timeline A, but it is no longer Timeline A when they arrive there -- it is Timeline B, where things are subtly (at least) different. The amount of mass and energy in the universe changes, and it is not inconceivable to suggest that even this tiny adjustment (especially if compounded dozens or hundreds or millions of times) would throw off the Earth's period of rotation, which might alter its period of revolution, and so forth. The Butterfly Effect, basically. Repeated time travel might change the rate at which the universe expands, causing us to suffer a Big Crunch!

    But besides that, we traditionally assume that because a person travels back in time from 2934CE to 2007CE, that in Timeline A a naked guy appears in an alleyway, gets dragged into a psychiatric hospital blathering about the future, and meets Madeleine Stowe. This is derived from the idea that time is linear and that time travel is a sort of loop.

    In Timeline B, there is quite possibly such a time tourist, and by the time you get to Timeline ZZZZYQ, the nature of time might be so fragmented that
    any attempt at coherently explaining history fails completely.

    I do not suggest that an act of time travel splits the universe in two á la the multiple universes theory. At least, I don't think I do. Perhaps I do in another universe's MacRumors. I'm not sure that I can grasp what the implications of this idea are.

    I certainly do not believe, however, that Timeline A ceases to exist completely because of an act of time travel. Timeline A, where Cyberdyne does not design Skynet -- it is designed by someone else, continues to exist. Timeline B, where a T-800 is sent back in time by Microsoft Skynet v2.3™ to kill Sarah Connor (and succeeds) continues to exist. Timeline C, where the discovery of a crushed T-800 leads Cyberdyne to design Skynet and Skynet sends a T-800 back in time to kill Sara Connor, continues to exist.

    If all points in time on Timeline A exist at the same "time" (viewed in a higher dimension), and the same for all other Timelines, we might assume that there is a law conserving energy similar to our own physical laws. If that is the case, it would be impossible to create or destroy timelines, only convert them into other timelines. I suppose this actually destroys my idea that multiple timelines can exist concurrently. (Hell, I don't know, I'm making this up as I go along)

    Of course, I think that above paragraph presupposes the existence of free will. I don't believe in free will, since it goes against everything I understand about neuroscience, physics, and so forth. You may have conflicting desires, but in the end you will make the only decision you could have made.

    If indeed there is no such thing as free will, and our lives and the ultimate fate of the universe down to the lives of the most microscopic buggers are fixed by physical laws operating in direct causal relationships, then there can only be one timeline or, at best, a fixed array of timelines.

    And so, when Globbitus of Planet McDonald's in 2934CE gets the Spinning Beachball of Death on his copy of OS X Lemur and starts Time Machine v.161.42 without deleting the .plist or repairing permissions and actually travels back in time to 2007, it is still conceivable to view Globbitus as a rather perplexed (naked?) person suddenly appearing in an alley in Akron, Ohio, where he flirts with my wife and I kick his ass.

    But at the same time, you might be able to view time more as a side view of an ant farm -- with branches thrown around willy-nilly -- not evolving as time progresses in a linear sense but rather there in its full glory ever since the birth of the universe, predetermined by the most miniscule of initial variables. Can the Big Bang alter structures in higher dimensions? Perhaps the better question is: was the Big Bang a result of structures in higher dimensions?

    This is why I disbelieve in God. Every wonder that I see, from these little collectivist-socialist amoebas I read about on DamnInteresting to the ultimate mysteries of the universe, is immensely diminished by positing the existence of a man in the clouds who wants us to avoid eating shellfish. It's a rather depressing idea, to me at least. Similarly, it's a mistake to interpret literature of any kind based on the testimony of characters from that literature, who necessarily (as we all do) have imperfect knowledge. Analysis of the reality of the work, as much as we can perceive, is the only way to perceive the truth of the work.
     
  18. Jaffa Cake macrumors Core

    Jaffa Cake

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    The City of Culture, Englandshire
    #18
    I'd always just taken it as only living beings can go through the time-travely thing, the original Terminator could do so as he's encased in flesh, the more advanced Terminators are essentially 'living metal' so they can go through too.

    All this other stuff is making my head hurt. :eek:
     
  19. bartelby macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    #19
    It's a film, don't expect a flawless plot line.
     
  20. Iscariot macrumors 68030

    Iscariot

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Location:
    Toronteazy
    #20
    What you wrote doesn't really rule out time tourists, historians, or other time visitors, it just points out why it would be a really bad idea. Because something is a "bad idea" rarely stops people from embarking down a certain path, as you know.
     
  21. PlaceofDis macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #21
    QFT.

    suspend reality and let it be. don't over analyze as it might ruin it for yourself.
     
  22. jdr70 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2008
    #22
    if humans can ever develop time-travel, why aren't there time tourists or time historians?



    Actually, i remember a friend in college saying that time travelers from the future are probably a better explanation for UFOs than them being aliens from another planet. He was quoting some scientist i can't remember.
     
  23. Unspeaked macrumors 68020

    Unspeaked

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2003
    Location:
    West Coast
    #23
    That all depends on how you view time, as was mentioned further up.

    Is it all linear, or are there branches?



    I thought that while the first two had many behind the scenes players in common, the third was basically sold off to a different production company who pretty much just cast Arnold (and the upcoming 4th will be even worse...).


    That all reminds me of a story I once read in an issue of Weird Science from EC Comics!
     
  24. GhostWhoWalks macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2007
    #24
    I do not get tied up in plot flaws or omissions especially in science fiction. It is entertaining throwing about what ifs and speculation with stories such as this.
     
  25. bartelby macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    #25
    Hence the name.
     

Share This Page